The Supreme Court has confirmed that Álvaro García Ortiz must pay €39,000 in legal costs. The decision follows his conviction for revealing secrets in the case involving Isabel Díaz Ayuso's partner. Attempts to further reduce the amount were rejected.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Álvaro García Ortiz, the former fiscal general del Estado, must pay €39,000 in legal costs related to his conviction for revealing secrets about Alberto González Amador, the partner of Madrid's regional president Isabel Díaz Ayuso. This decision finalizes a months-long dispute over the amount, after García Ortiz sought a further reduction following an initial cut from nearly €80,000.
The case stems from García Ortiz's actions in 2023, when he was found guilty of leaking an email connected to González Amador, who was under investigation for tax fraud. The court also cited the publication of a press release by the public prosecutor's office, which aimed to counter what it described as false claims from Ayuso's circle regarding negotiations with González Amador's lawyer. As a result, García Ortiz was removed from his post, fined €7,200, and ordered to pay €10,000 in compensation to González Amador, in addition to covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
The legal costs became a point of contention after the court's legal officer initially set the amount at €79,942, reflecting the full request from González Amador's defense, including €64,778.78 in lawyer fees, €13,603.54 in VAT, and €1,560 for the court representative. Both the prosecution and the State Attorney's Office, representing García Ortiz, challenged this figure as excessive, proposing a much lower sum of €4,240. The legal officer later acknowledged some improper charges and halved the amount to €39,000. However, García Ortiz and the prosecution continued to argue for a further reduction, which the Supreme Court has now rejected.
In its decision, the court emphasized that accepting the State Attorney's proposal would deprive the private prosecution—represented by González Amador—of fair compensation for necessary legal actions during the trial. The judges clarified that these were not superfluous or unnecessary steps, referencing criteria that could exempt a convicted party from paying costs only in cases of clearly redundant legal work.
The fine and compensation imposed on García Ortiz were paid by the Unión Progresista de Fiscales (UPF), the association he once led, using donations from its members. However, the legal costs—covering the fees of González Amador's lawyer and court representative—remained unresolved until this Supreme Court ruling. The outcome highlights ongoing tensions in high-profile legal battles involving political figures in Spain, echoing other recent cases where the handling of sensitive information and internal investigations have drawn scrutiny. For example, the government's response to internal probes in the Guardia Civil, as seen when Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stood by Mercedes González during an investigation into leaks, has also sparked debate over accountability and legal boundaries. More details on that situation can be found in this report on the government's stance during the Guardia Civil internal probe.
Legal costs in Spanish criminal proceedings are determined by the court and can include lawyer and court representative fees, as well as applicable taxes. Disputes over these amounts are not uncommon, especially in politically sensitive cases. The Supreme Court's decision in this instance reinforces the principle that private prosecutions are entitled to reasonable compensation for their legal efforts, even when the defendant is a former high-ranking official. The case also underscores the financial and reputational risks faced by public figures involved in legal controversies, particularly when associations or organizations step in to cover penalties. As Spain continues to see high-profile legal disputes involving political and judicial actors, the management of legal costs and the transparency of such proceedings remain under close public and institutional scrutiny.
